Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the return shape (price per unit in SUN, per duration tier, all tiers) and that these are minimum prices. It does not say whether values are read on-chain or from a fallback source, nor whether results can be stale, which matters for a pricing tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tightly packed sentences with the scope first and the return units second. Every clause adds information; nothing is redundant.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers scope and return units adequately. A brief note on data freshness or source would make it complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single optional resourceType enum, so the schema already documents filtering. The description reinforces the default scope ('all duration tiers', both resources) but adds no format or edge-case semantics beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get current TRON Energy and Bandwidth minimum prices for all duration tiers,' which is clearly distinct from siblings like get_market_overview, buy_energy, or estimate_cost. The only gap is that it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives, but the purpose is unmistakable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by 'current ... minimum prices' — an agent would call this when it needs a rate snapshot. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_market_overview, estimate_cost, or buy_energy, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.